Tag Archives: anti-Maidan

US Strategy in Ukraine: WAR with Russia?

Lugansk Civilian Bombing

                  Lugansk Civilian Bombing

The Human face of Kiev Bombing

At least in Gaza, Israel uses the excuse of hunting terrorists. What is the excuse for random terror bombing of civilians in Lugansk / Donetsk? Kiev is losing the ground war, losing military jets, losing draftees, needing increased mobilization, losing its coalition government, and rapidly going broke. Yet it increases the genocidal bombing of “pro-Russians.”  
Simultaneously, in a myriad of dubious coincidences, a commercial airline crash almost causes enough outrage for a major war. If MH17 was a false flag, WHY?
East Ukraine seceded because of a political coup where they were not represented. They didn’t ATTACK the central government. They VOTED to secede after the Constitution was abrogated by a faction in one city.. But the unelected Kiev coalition-junta immediately responded with a full-scale military attack to FORCE re-affiliation by attacking civilian areas, a strategy which logically would justify and harden the resistance. Subsequently, the US-imposed and -controlled junta refuses to consider ANY negotiations without first DISARMING the secessionists, before passing any legislation that would address their concerns.
How would THAT sound to pro-2nd Amendment Americans?

The attacks are against “pro-Russian Ukrainians”, not military targets, nor even the specific government buildings taken over by the locals. Apparently occupying government buildings is now a capital crime in Ukraine (except in Kiev’s Maidan). The Western propaganda is hysterically and universally and immediately Anti-PUTIN, not anti-Strelkov.

The agenda seems to be to PROVOKE a Soviet-style reaction by Russia, which can be SOLD by PROPAGANDA as “another Russian invasion of a US ally.” Despite this explanation, Crimea was re-affiliated with mother Russia by overwhelming popular support, with absolute minimum casualties, in contrast to Kiev’s attempts to re-affiliate Donbass. If Russia can be maneuvered to be perceived as brutally invading Ukraine “against international law”, NATO would be “required” to respond with direct attacks on Russia from East European forward NATO bases, which were installed with full preparatory logistics (“purely defensively” of course). Now these bases are being quietly (i.e.: ignored by MSM) readied with increased aircraft, and “symbolic” transfers of elite military units, from the Baltic to the Balkans.

Now, the Ukrainian army has been surreptitiously shelling RUSSIAN territory near Rostov, while Western media is claiming that Russia is building up forces on the border and shelling Ukraine FROM Russia.

The GOAL is apparently ALL OUT WAR with Russia and forcible retaking of Crimea.  Undoubtedly with the objective of disabling Russia’s Black Sea fleet, giving NATO total DIRECT control of the Black Sea access route to Caspian Oil & Gas reserves, with or without Russian Pipelines.
Coincidentally (again?) NATO naval maneuvers JUST concluded with US, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria, with an emphasis on mining operations. Other than Sevastopol, what ports are worth mining in the Black Sea? With Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey as NATO allies, there is very little BESIDES Crimea to prevent the Black Sea from becoming Lake NATO.  Crimea is critical for US/NATO control of Caspian gas fields. The current land war may be just a diversion to justify a naval war to accomplish it. Crimea cannot be attacked successfully by land due to easily blocked chokepoints.

US doesn’t want a cease fire, nor will it be satisfied with a Ukraine Confederation including Donbass. It is committed to military confrontation. US wants the GAS. It wants an excuse for inflating the petrodollar, and it needs cover to avoid the US economy from tanking, especially before the November US elections. It just needs to catch the public up with the decision already made.

If this is the strategy, it is becoming desperate, especially with the breakup of the junta government. The Right Wing Svoboda has bolted. UDAR has no influence. The Tymoshenko-proxy PM has quit. Now, the war will have to accelerate, and become more like Syria, with increasingly random Right Sektor atrocities, at the direction of the CIA. ESPECIALLY if MH17 is shown to be a failed US false flag.
All the “evidence” put forth blaming Russia in one form or another, has been fabricated, or “confidential”. The old “Trust us, we’re the good guys-type evidence.” Since that tragic event didn’t trigger the expected result, what next? There is an media-hyped attempt to insert NATO troops at the crash site (to protect it). Then, maybe massacring them by a “Russian Missile”? (Similar to first responders at the WTC.) The war acceptance threshold needs more dead bodies, but they really need to be innocent Americans or EUs. Slavic bodies, like Palestinians, don’t matter. They have less value as emotional propaganda, especially when those bodies are atrocities caused by the West, at which point they are ignored by the “Stenographic Media” (Abby Martin’s bulls-eye).

Something will have to occur to generate sufficient outrage to start a full scale NATO-Russian war. The West seems to be hard at work in the propaganda arena. The current tack continues to be trying to provoke Putin to make a drastic move. But, so far, Putin seems to have figured that out! He is presenting HIS evidence about MH17, while quietly arming Donbass with defensive weaponry against the  civilian terror bombing by Kiev in such a way as to maintain some thin deniability. He cannot allow the West to attack his flank and do nothing.
The US (the shadow government behind the puppet Obama) seems to have made the decision that Russia is as vulnerable as it will ever be. The recent BRICS currency agreement threatens the petrodollar, and if successful will accelerate the demise of US economic hegemony. US overt aggression has reached the desperation stage.
In my opinion, only Germany is the key to avoid a catastrophe. Merkel needs to take EU leadership away from the Anglo-American hegemony/suicide cabal (hegemony for US/ suicide for Europe). Intercontinental nuclear exchanges is a price not yet willing to be paid by the US. Therefore, the sole risk is to Europe in a ground war, previously believed anachronistic. In such a scenario, only the US benefits. (CUI BONO anyone?) If war starts, the private-bank Fed finances it, Europe and Russia suffer it, in manpower, and economic progress. Subsequent destruction would need to be rebuilt by US multinationals, with similar experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, financed by US and UK banks.
Today, Obama is golfing. Next week, Congress closes down for a month. It will be a bloody August…  just as it was exactly 100 years ago, beginning August 5, 1914, the Battle of Liege.

The Risk of Miscalculation in Ukraine

The wrong place to poke the Russian Bear

In Russia’s immediate backyard, Ukraine, a country larger than France, and the location of Russia’s primary warm water port and Black Sea naval base, the Ukrainian president made a strategic decision NOT to ally with the EU at this time, without a TRI-LATERAL agreement including its natural geographic ally and sponsor, Russia.

Demonstrations against EU’s misguided “either-or” choice in Kiev, the capital, largely by young people who did not personally experience the consequences of the Holomodor Famine-Holocaust in 1932-33, nor the Nazi-Stalinist occupation and purges of the 1940s-50s, the combination of which decimated the Ukrainian population by almost 30%, have gained worldwide headlines. Ukraine must avoid being again trapped in the middle between two ideologies. The country is already reeling economically and societally in a post-genocidal culture shock.

Many Western advocates, particularly anti-Putinists (ie: John McCain), argue that Ukraine sold out its national heritage, blackmailed by Russia. In reality, the EU offer on the table was economically a BAD DEAL for Ukraine. So bad, in fact, that one wonders it was considered at all, and arouses suspicions as to true Western motives. The overriding political reality is that Russia is NOT about to allow its southern flank to be exposed militarily or economically. Period. On the other hand, the EU (ie: the US-led Western Alliance) is continuing its antagonistic strategic goal of isolating Russia by attempting to gradually peel off its former Soviet vassal States into the EU fold, one by one.

Much of the willingness of Ukrainians to substitute one hegemon for the other, is the rampant corruption of the current government, not entirely free of former Soviet hardliners and privileged oligarchs. They look to an idealized Europe for respite, and see prospects for betterment along East German and Polish examples. Unfortunately, they do not anticipate the two decades it took those countries to achieve their improved status. Nor do they understand that the corruption of European Central Banks is as insidious as their current condition, in creating vassals. EU and IMF “loans” come with strings and consequences, such as the  “austerity” regulations currently experienced by Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland. The EU carrot comes with a stick. Without accession, “sanctions” against the duly elected government are being contemplated.

As much as I think Yanukovych is a typical heavy-handed Soviet style thug, he may actually be adeptly walking the tightrope in a no-win situation. While the EU courtship seems benign, it also includes a strategic component of separating Ukraine from Russia, in terms of politics and petrodollars, part of a long term strategy to isolate Russia by the West.

Just as the USA would react suspiciously to Soviet/Russian/Chinese incursions into Mexico, Putin is not about to expose his southern flank, economically or otherwise. Without stating it, Ukraine is Putin’s “red line”. With the Soviet fleet in the Black Sea, Ukraine is in the Russian sphere, regardless whether all 100% Ukrainians wish it were otherwise.

On the surface, it may seem to be about economic self-determination. In reality, it is a continuation (or new creation) of the Cold War between US and Russia. The Kissinger-Brzezinski containment strategy is being proxied here, as much as it is in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Syria. Yanukovych’s fence-sitting may prove to be an adept avoidance of significant national upheaval, particularly along linguistic loyalties, and potential civil war. The perpetual unsolvable chaos of Egypt may occur here also, perhaps as an integral part of the Western strategy.

A middle path of negotiations must be found to avoid Ukraine’s becoming an unfortunate geographic pawn in a superpower game it cannot win, yet cannot avoid without consummate dexterity. The EU opportunity is part Trojan horse, and Putin knows it, including progressive ingratiating into the Western sphere. Insisting on choosing between EU or Russia will result badly for Ukraine. In this case Yanukovych’s crude sense of survival may coincide with Ukrainian national interests. Between Stalin’s enforced collectivization, the genocidal Holodomor Famine, and WW2, Ukraine lost almost 15 million of  its population over two consecutive generations. Another 6 million decline has occurred since 1980.

Russia must be first to integrate into Europe, before it will allow itself to be further isolated by losing more influence in former Soviet States to the West. If the West wants peace, stability and security, Stalin’s legacy of national paranoia must be acknowledged, not challenged. Only when it becomes comfortable, will it allow Ukraine to tag along. They have actually floated the concept of a tri-partite agreement for coordinated participation in Europe, but so far (at US instigation?) THAT solution doesn’t advance US geopolitical and petrodollar interests, indicating the intent all along is to chip away at the former military-economic bloc until there is no alternative.  You can not securitize Europe by isolating and antagonizing Russia. Security results from mutual cooperation, not perpetual confrontation against vital national interests.

The stakes are as high here as they are in the Middle East, for EITHER defining 21st Century superpower hegemony, or structuring a durable economic and military peace.  The stakes for Ukraine may be even greater.



MONEY: Gold & Silver vs. Dollars & Fiat Currencies


No Limit to Our Anger (c) V. M. Molotov

E pluribus UNO

MONEY: Gold & Silver vs. Dollars & Fiat Currencies


Discipline Cogitation Analysis


ARTICLES IN THE NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, IDEAS

Big Scary Ideas

This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas